|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: Obama against FTA with ROK |
 |
|
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200805/200805260010.html
| Quote: |
Obama Speaks Out Against Korea-U.S. FTA
U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Thursday sent a letter to U.S. President George W. Bush urging him not to submit the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement for ratification by Congress.
In the letter, the Democratic party frontrunner said, "Like many members of Congress, I oppose the U.S.-Korea FTA, which I believe is badly flawed. In particular, the terms of the agreement fall well short of assuring effective, enforceable market access for American exports of manufactured goods and many agricultural products."
Saying that provisions on automobiles are very much in favor of Korea, Obama wrote, "Approval of the agreement as negotiated would give Korean exports essentially unfettered access to the U.S. market and would eliminate our best opportunity for obtaining genuinely reciprocal market access in one of the world's largest economies."
"Instead of provoking unnecessary and potentially corrosive confrontation over this agreement, your administration could make a significant contribution towards re-establishing trust with Congress and restoring bipartisan cooperation on trade by withholding the agreement,� he added.
Obama made the letter public on Saturday, even as Bush celebrated World Trade Week by saying, "I'm a strong believer that � Congress needs to pass trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea."
A Korean government official on Sunday, commenting on Obama�s effective "red light" for ratification of the FTA this year, indicated both countries would be disappointed because they had such high expectations about the trade deal.
The official described South Korea-U.S. relations by saying, "The higher the mountain is, the deeper the valley" -- hinting at disappointment in Seoul that an early honeymoon when the new conservative government took office here should so soon fade to gray.
Another official said, "Obama's opposition to the FTA seems to have been politically motivated by his conflict with President Bush. If the ratification of the FTA is thwarted, this will inevitably damage Korea-U.S. relations." |
The buzzword in trade negotiations will now be "reciprocity". I think this is generally a positive development.
In regards to the last sentence, the Korea-US relationship has been damaged by Koreans and their constant pissing and moaning. Time for those roosting chickens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
These two posts from another thread may be relevant here.
Nothing about this development is positive. There is plenty of reciprocity in the agreement as it stands. Obama is focusing on one detail, the automobile provision, at the expense of the entire agreement.
| Quote: |
Goods Market Access
Tariff commitments: Thirty-eight percent of U.S. tariff lines and 13 percent of Korean tariff lines currently have free rates of duty. Upon implementation of the FTA, more than 82 percent of U.S. tariff lines and more than 80 percent of Korean tariff lines would have free rates of duty for their FTA partner. Approximately 99 percent of U.S. tariff lines and 98
percent of Korean tariff lines would have free rates of duty by year 10.
Impact of Tariff- and Tariff-rate Quota-related Provisions on the
U.S. Economy
The Commission's simulation of the economy-wide impact of tariff and TRQ elimination under the FTA estimates that upon full implementation U.S. GDP would likely increase by $10.1�11.9 billion (approximately 0.1 percent). This increase reflects higher U.S. export
prices as the removal of relatively large Korean tariffs and TRQs, primarily in the agriculture sector, increases demand for U.S. exports. Without a full quantitative analysis of services trade and international investment patterns, however, these simulation results should not be
interpreted as changes in total imports and exports, or as implying meaningful information about the balance of trade impact of the entire U.S.-Korea FTA.
U.S. exports to Korea:
Based on the results of the economy-wide model simulation, U.S.
exports to Korea are estimated to be $9.7�10.9 billion higher once the FTA is fully implemented. The largest estimated increases in U.S. exports, by percent, would likely be in dairy products, other meat products (primarily pork and poultry), wearing apparel, and bovine meat products (beef). The largest estimated increases in U.S. exports, by value, would
likely be in various machinery and equipment; chemical, rubber, and plastic products; bovine meat products; other meat products; and certain other food products.
U.S. imports from Korea:
Based on the results of the economy-wide model simulation, U.S. imports from Korea are estimated to be $6.4�6.9 billion higher once the FTA is fully implemented. The largest estimated increases in U.S. imports, by percent, are in dairy products, wearing apparel, and footwear and leather products. The largest estimated
increases in imports, by value, are in textiles, motor vehicles and parts, and wearing apparel.
U.S. industries:
The FTA would likely result in a small to negligible impact on output or
employment for most sectors of the U.S. economy, as expected losses in output and employment in contracting sectors are expected to be offset by gains in expanding sectors. The bovine meat products sector; the upstream cattle, sheep, goats, and horses sector; and the other meat products sector are estimated to experience the largest percentage increases (up to 2.0 percent) in output and employment. Textiles, wheat, wearing apparel, and electronic equipment are anticipated to experience the greatest declines, although generally less than 1 percent. The modest declines in some industries, such as wheat, are primarily driven by the reallocation of resources to higher value products. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I disagree. Korea will not live up to her side of the agreement. We already see this happening with the beef scare. They will, as they do, claim "special situation" and find a way to wiggle out of her requirements.
The US agriculture/cattle industry will be strong without the FTA. It is heavy manufacturing that needs special attention. These "free trade agreements" are managed trade, not free trade. And if we are going to have managed trade, it ought to be managed for those industries that need help. American financial services firms, agriculture firms and smaller manufacturers need less attention than automotive firms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For example:
http://www.rjkoehler.com
| Quote: |
The Seoul Shinmun reports that for the time being, major Korean supermarkets have decided NOT to sell US beef.
This stands in contrast to what they were saying at the beginning at the month, when they were saying they had no choice but to sell it because of consumer demand.
Importers, however, said they would sell US beef to wholesalers and retailers like restaurant butcher shops.
Sinsegye�s E-Mart, for instance, said Monday that it would not sell US beef, regardless of any agreement regarding imports. It said that earlier in the month, it felt it had to put it on its shelves due to demand, but rapidly deteriorating public opinion has made this impossible. It left open the possibility of selling it at some later date, but first there needed to be a public consensus on the safety of US beef.
Home Plus, meanwhile, said it had no plans to sell US beef. It said that when it contacted importers last month, the importers had raised the price, noting the popularity of US beef at major markets last year. With public opinion worsening, however, the supermarket cannot even think about selling it, regardless of how cheap it is.
Lotte Mart also said it has no plans to sell US beef, despite having been positive about the idea earlier this month.
Importers, however, plan to sell their wares as scheduled. One distributor said that while major markets have decided not to sell US beef, he understood that smaller retailers and wholesalers planned to accept deliveries. He didn�t know if the stuff, if labeled US beef, would sell with public opinion being what it is.
Major department stores that sell Korean beef, like Lotte and Sinsegye, meanwhile, have decided not to sell US beef, which will begin hitting the market from early June.
Marmot�s Note: This is complete and utter bullshit. With the market so poisoned, one wonders whether US beef will sell even if it�s allowed back into the country.
Way back when (in 2000), when Korean got into the �Garlic War� with China, Beijing showed us the proper way to handle trade disputes with Seoul � by being a total dick:
South Korea has decided to import another 10,000 tons of garlic from China, a key trade dispute threatening local exporters of mobile phones and polyethylene goods, officials said Monday.
The decision came as Beijing set Wednesday for the deadline for Seoul to import the garlic or face a temporary ban on two major export items to China � cellular phones and polyethylene goods � in retaliation.
See? Problem solved!
Rather than have the US ambassador call up the head of the opposition to bitch like a little girl, just renegotiate the beef deal, but do so after you�ve slapped retaliatory trade measures on Korean cell phones and cars (which, if the FTA doesn�t go through, is exactly what they may get � on a permanent basis � from the Obama White House). Let the Korean public know that while for cultural and social reasons you�re unlikely to see masses of candle-toting Americans gathering on the Mall to condemn Korean trade practices, this kind of behavior does have consequences. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for all his faults, at least understood this much. I feel bad for President Lee � this isn�t his fault, after all � but he apparently needs assistance in explaining to the public what�s at stake here. I say let Washington help him out by showing them. |
What good is a trade deal when the population has been thrown into an emotional anti-beef dither without any reason.
Korean public opinion often resembles that of a hysterical child. The country simply can't be trusted to hold to their end of any deal. Look at the Lone Star fiasco. The Koreans make it up as they go along, depending on the 'gusts of popular feeling' of the day. The emotional characteristic of public opinion needs the heavy hand of an angry father. Pull the FTA and slap duties on cars and phones. Enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There is plenty of reciprocity in the agreement as it stands. |
This seems rather subjective to me, but then any deal of this kind relies on a subjective judgement in the end when it comes to fairness.
I guess this is one of those days when I feel an FTA is just business's way of engaging in a 'race to the bottom' at the expense of those of us without golden parachutes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I guess this is one of those days when I feel an FTA is just business's way of engaging in a 'race to the bottom' at the expense of those of us without golden parachutes. |
Why? Tariffs hurt consumers most of all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why? Tariffs hurt consumers most of all. |
Once upon a time I was out for a walk with a Korean friend and we happened to pass a group of ajummas with their straw hats, towels around their heads and long-sleeve shirts, squating in the grass pulling weeds. I said, "Wouldn't it be more efficient for the city to buy a lawnmower?"
My friend said, "Yeah, but then what would those ajummas do for a living?"
That got me thinking. Is efficiency always the best policy? Can't a case be made for a little inefficiency if it produces jobs for people who can then support themselves in independence and dignity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is a very clear economic retort to your question ya-ta. But economic theories don't deal well with those cast aside during advancement.
Of course, it is better on aggregate that the typewriter industry is dead but the people who spent their lives carefully learning how to build/design a typewriter are clear losers from the advancement. How we deal with those cast aside from technological and efficiency advancements is an oft-neglected policy requirement. The US does try to reducate those who lose from trade, but they are often too old as well to invest the several years in university in an attempt to get the high-value skills now needed to earn a middle class income. What often happens is that they are educated to be nurses aides (if women) and the like, and take a permanent hit on their earning power. NPR did a good series on those left behind.
In the case of your lady weed pickers, it might just be best to leave them be as the costs are likely quite minimal. They are too old to learn new skills, and putting them on the dole might be even more expensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
